Back to Squawk list
  • 25

Cargojet Boeing 767 Has To Take Evasive Action When Glider Drifts Into Its Path

A Boeing 767 was forced to break off its approach into Hamilton, Ontario (YHM) after the flight crew spotted a glider in its path. The Cargojet flight had flown from Vancouver, British Columbia (YVR), and was tracking the ILS to runway 12 when the incident occurred. The 767 pilots had no indication that the glider was there until they could see it directly in front of them. The pilots banked the aircraft to the right to avoid a collision. They were then able to re-intercept the localizer and… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Sidney Smith 8
At the minimum gliders should have a radar target that can been seen by ATC radar. At least it would show up as a primary only reflection.
Highflyer1950 6
I suggest the glider may have been too far to the southwest of the town of Troy which would put it directly in the vicinity of the localizer of rnwy 12 at CYHM. Rockton glider club is located just east of Troy at Rockton, Ontario. Gliders normally stay away from both the arrival star over YXU for CYYZ and the IFR app to 12 at CYHM, not so apparently in this case.
Jim Smirh 7
"See and avoid" always applies. "Evasive" is simply 'click-bait'. <sarcasm>So glad the airplane was equipped with ailerons and rudder for THIS flight!!</sarcasm>
Duane Mader 5
If the glider is legal VFR he’s not at fault but common sense says stay the heck out of busy flight paths. ADS-B is pretty cheap and has low power requirements.
Paul Curs 5
A year or so ago, on VFR flight following at 3,500' MSL beneath an overcast deck, heading 090, with no ADS-B traffic near by, Houston approach suddenly transmitted, "Mooney XXXX, turn left immediately to 030 degrees! Immediately!" I did so with 45 degrees of left bank because of the concern in his voice! A glider that was not on my panel mounted ADS-B display suddenly appeared about 500 feet away, right in front of me at my altitude!!
I thought, "That's like dodging choppers in the friendly skies of Vietnam!" which I had done many years ago. I later asked approach control if gliders are required to have ADS-B and he said, "No, gliders are not required to have ADS-B." I was in disbelief! Why the heck not? Know where the glider ports are along your route of flight -- and the large parachute areas that extend into Class D airspace, like at KHMI (San Marcos, TX).
Dan Marotta 3
Why the heck not? Because gliders do not have an engine driven electrical system and are exempt from the rules. That said, my (certificated) glider has a Mode S transponder with ADS-B In/Out. All it took was a bigger battery and some solar panels.
sparkie624 -1
So basically because they cannot put in an electrical system (Not even a Nicad Battery) they get a special exemption to get into anyone else's way!
John Nichols 0
Even a P-51 has an electrical system, with transponder...
Right Spark?
sparkie624 1
They should.... My feelings is that if they want to fly with out equipment, find and ok... But they must stay in uncontrolled airspace below 5000 ft MSL....
Dan Marotta -1
Your opinion is just that: Your opinion.

Read the FAR on the subject. I don't know about Canada's regulations.

And with that, I'm out of the discussion. Feelings don't count, neither to P-51s (though I really like them). They were originally built (never certificated) with an engine driven electrical system.

14 CFR § 91.215
sparkie624 0
Yes it is MY opinion and that is exactly the way I worded it... What kind of KNEE JERK reaction is the FAA going to do when one is involved in a Midair and kills a couple hundred people!
Bill Conn 2
Thank you sir for your story and more importantly, your service. My experience is with rotor aircraft almost exclusively so yes, I get it. My whole point is that what is more important real safety or regulations. No expense is too much if it saves one Life!?!
Bill Conn 1
Harrowing experience!! Thank God for you and your sharp cockpit mates!!
Sidney Smith 1
We had a near thing outside BOI 7 years ago, 737 descending out of 230 for 120 went by a glider at 15,000. The crew said it was less than 75 feet separation. They can carry oxygen but the transponder and battery are just too heavy. Yeah, thanks for that guys.
SkyAware123 -1
You're telling me flying beneath overcast deck you couldn't see more than 500 feet away and see the glider? ? ? wtf
John Nichols 2
I read it as making the glider after he initiated a left 45 degree bank turn. That means the Bogie was off portside. Something he missed in his scan. By the way, it js easy to get comfortable re traffic when in VFR flight following...the glider hadn't been talking to ATC, that is unacceptable.
SkyAware123 1
I don't get it. So he turned right towards the glider after the 45 degree turn? I Guess he did get a bit too comfortable.
John Nichols 1
No. He complied with a left turn of 60 degrees
John Nichols 1
45 degrees was bank angle. Read slowly.
SkyAware123 1
ya, I see it. Shouldn't he have turned the other way? Especially since he was likely going faster than the glider.
Rick VanSice 1
What is the glider doing in controlled airspace with cloud deck obscuring the view not just for that pilot but for the approaching big iron??? You think he should know controlled airspace....that is why there are maps to be read to provide guidance and showing you the airport to stay away from!!!
linbb 1
Have it mandatory they install transponders in all of them. Too hard to see and think they own the air just like sail boats.
Paul Wisgerhof 8
Many gliders have no electrical system.
sparkie624 2
Then they need to install one, even if it is just for the Transponder! that is not excuse to evade safety! Especially with some at 10,000 feet!
Cecil North 5
If you don’t understand the rules of navigation I suggest you read your COLREGS.
SkyAware123 1
COLREGS is for traffic at sea. Explain how this apply to airplanes?
Jim Allen 6
That’s a bit rough on the rhetoric side. Should they have transponders? If they’re anywhere near commercial traffic or an airway, yes.
japanjeff 2
I wonder if this glider already had FLARM, but perhaps the airliner unfortunately didn't have equipment to receive that information being broadcasted by the glider.
sparkie624 6
I agree... it should be Mandatory to have a Transponder and ADSB Out!
SkyAware123 2
So drones now need to have adsb, yet a glider doesn't ??????? wtf
James Simms 0
And like bicyclists think they own the road & can do as they please riding the middle of two lanes, blowing by stop signs & lights, switching lanes to suit them w/out repercussions.
wtwisniewski 0
Most gliders and balloons are certified without an electrical system. To add one, the supplemental certification would cost more than the whole aircraft. Even the cost of the new ADSB equipment would be a major fraction of the total cost. Some glider and balloon pilots squitter using avionics that are "personal accessories", not certified to any standard, similarly to the use of phones and tablets for navigation, bypassing the certification, but personal equipment can't be mandated.
@linbb, Isn't it the transport operators and pilots that act as if they "own the air"?
In a midair collision, the faster aircraft flies into the slower one. Shouldn't the faster aircraft be more burdened with technology for avoidance? The additional cost of the technology is also more equitable given that the faster aircraft cost a lot more and have a greater cash flow supporting them than slower aircraft.
Fortunately, new radar and optical technologies will soon augment the human eye, far outperforming it. See and Avoid is the best a human pilot can do alone, but our eyes are quite poor at finding small targets in random directions, and we see less than a quarter of the sphere around us at any time. Most mid-airs occur due to aircraft not being able to see each other.
sparkie624 1
A great idea would be if the FAA would allow Gliders to use a Portable ADSB-Out... With that, you set your Transponder Code on the unit... Check Out: - A very interesting Article.
Bruce Johnson 1
Because of James Steiner, I now pay close attention to where his links lead to. Most likely to Lazy. Find and post the story from the SOURCE. This story should be correctly attributed to
Dave Benjamin 1
Interesting that Flightaware track for this flight does not show a go-around.
Donald Smith 6
From what I got out of the story, he didn't go around. He banked to the right avoiding the glider the got back on his original course and landed.
SkyAware123 2
Well, try reading the article, will you ? clearly says they re-intercepted the localizer.
W B johnson 1
How close to the runway was the 767? If it was truly close and had to make a significant turn to peg the localizer, that was hardly a stabilized approach (regardless of fault). If he was far enough out to readily re-acquire the localizer, I question the assertion that "the aircraft was nearing the runway". Otherwise a go-around would have been appropriate—or the aircrew made a poor decision.
Gary Eldridge 1
"Has to take evasive action" he should. The glider has the right of way!!!
Bill Conn 2
Does the "RIGHT OF WAY" really matter? What matters is no one was injured or worse!!
wtwisniewski 1
A major flaw in ADSB is its ancient technology. A $50 cell phone is perhaps a million times more efficient at conveying information than ADSB which uses pulse amplitude modulation inherited from the earliest Identification Friend or Foe schemes. Then, the FAA demanded that the signals be receivable from spacecraft hence the hundreds of watts of power that is required. (There are a dozen more system flaws that aren't crucial to this issue.) Aricraft that were not considered sufficiently in ADSB design are exempt from squitter outside of Class C and B airspace and up to FL100 above them. ADSB is not suitable for their designs, modes of flight, and budgets.
It seems that many of the commentators here, and powered aircraft pilots appear unaware of the numerous aircraft they share the less controlled airspace with. There are manned balloons and unmanned going to 100,000 feet; parafoils up to FL180 and powered parafoils, hang gliders up to FL180, and trikes; ultralight airplanes up to Class E unless equipped; gyroplanes and gyrocopters; skydivers; stratospheric rockets; and gliders below class A. Avoiding parachute jumping areas, gliderports, and even small airports only helps at very low altitudes because these aircraft categories are not restricted to use specific locations. The marked sites simply indicate a higher density of operations at low altitude. Gliders, for safety, fly as high as conditions allow, and travel hundreds of miles from takeoff.
ATC does not know where most of the small and slow traffic is so they can't give avoidance advisories. Only inside Class C, B, and A and maybe some D airspace can one expect managed separation between all categories.
Interestingly, I run PiAware under a Class C, and see about 1 in 4 medium weight aircraft without ADSB-Out. Single engine and large transports are equipped.
sparkie624 1
You comment is hard to read... There are a lot of Area's where ADSB is not required, but if you are in controlled airspace, then it is. I to run Pi-Aware... everything I see is ADSB. I have not seen a Non-ADSB Out in over a year, maybe 2... If you are in an out lying area, a Transponder is not required if you are not going through Controlled Airspace or flying IFR! The Fact that ADSB is simplistic is a good thing... Smaller Packages and cheaper... Sounds like you want to knock down General Aviation! The problem with that Glider even though legally he was in the write, he really was not where he was supposed to be. If an airliner was there, it was most likely a normal path. I am a firm believer that if they do not have ADSB Out, then they need to stay where they do not need that technology! They should not be at 10,000... Maybe limit gliders without proper radio gear and id gear limit them to 4000 AGL, and away from all IFR and Airway Routes. Seems the Glider is the problem and not the jet!
SkyAware123 -6
You're an idiot. If a hobby drone can transmit adsb, I don't see how a glider could not. fuck off with all the excuses. You're endangering people.
John Nichols 1
What am I missing? Canada has no positive control airspace? Round here a mode S and radio are mandatory. And comms....
Bill Conn 1
Any piece of equipment that will help in easing safety burdens should be mandatory. It's as if the word "glider" gives the pilot of that aircraft a reason not to comply with basic safety regulations. When the alternative is death it's really an ignorant argument!!!
alan curtis 1
There must be a balance. There is always one more piece of equipment that could help with safety, but at some point it's not economical to fly it anymore.
Bill Conn 0
The right of way argument holds no water. Using the same analogy, the aircraft that has the right of way should have just gone out of his/her way and let the other aircraft just hit them to prove the point!!


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.